Sean H - 870618
-
Posts
2480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sean H - 870618
-
-
Those were the days......
ATC hub for a day.
-
-
On it.
-
Sorry Quigs, I did a search and this was the only thread that it found. Thank you, NOTAM acknowledged. Also just loaded the ServInfo 1806 update. I should never have doubted....
I had thought CVN was going to ISA
-
Bump. Can I offer to correct the formatting errors and faults in the document?
-
OK, weird as hell.
When did CVN get added to DOS? And is this the only change to enroute sector boundaries? Are we going to change the ServInfo and vat-spy files?
i’ve searched the forum and can’t find any notification.
-
Hey Bailey, I did a fair bit of research into pacific control procedures, and submitted it to Vatpac almost a year ago. There are more issues than you mention including TWR providing services at a greater range than VATSIM allows, and Ctr doing procedural as you say. Radar is limited out there too. How that all gets applied on VATSIM, i’m Not sure.
I believe Vatpac put together a Pacific document for guidance on each of the positions, but I haven’t looked for it recently. If it isn’t on the document page for download, I’m sure someone will get it back.
-
1
-
-
>160kn westerly at FL330 at the moment, pack lunch going home to Perth.....
-
Is there formatting and content errors in the Brisbane Area LI version 6.2?
I have downloaded it twice, and the table of contents is corrupted, and section 5 in the document is missing to mention the most obvious.
-
Yes, it was just a heads up. Knew you guys would have been over it. New RWY won’t be operational until 2020, but things are being prep’d. Looking forward to the changes.
-
Fm 08 NOV 2018, current runway at Brisbane will be re-named 01R/19L.
reference H19/18
-
2
-
1
-
-
Nick, not sure I agree with that statement or Kirk’s position. I fly online a reasonable amount, not as much as I used too, and disagree that 90% is useless. Anything that enables situational awareness is a bonus. It may not be in a useful format, it may not be what a particular members wants, but it is information that can be analysed. Even if someone simply says inbound RWY 01, at least I know what runway they are intending (something any ‘who’s online’ isn’t going to provide).
..no-one ever...
is wrong! Sorry Nick.
I am sorry but I don’t understand why people continue to say something is broken, but don’t offer any solution, and further support not using it. Totally agree with the position on “monitor” and “should” but just because the wording is possibly wrong, the intention is to provide situational awareness just like in the real world. I can’t imagine using FlightRadar while flying my 172, and then disregarding CTAF reports because it doesn’t align with my intentions. Maybe that isn’t what people intended to suggest.
I believe we need to offer constructive ideas whenever raising an issue. If we have problems with Unicom, what is proposed? Vatpac I believe was leading the way with voice Unicom. Yes it seems to have slipped away. Until there is a suitable replacement (don’t know what that looks like to be honest), I think we need to support and work with it rather than openly suggesting actions which would breach the code.
”sure I shot him, but he didn’t indicate Officer!”
-
1
-
-
Excellent post Nick,
Interestingly, the FAA (god help us) actually cancels IFR when a pilot calls visual. Maybe the one thing they do that seems logical.
-
8 hours ago, Richard Quigley said:
I like Trents' solution!
"Cleared Visual approach, runway XX" does not, as far as I am aware, mandate that you MUST fly a visual approach, only that, as far as ATC is concerned, you are able to do so should you wish to. The choice is yours. You may be able to significantly reduce your approach mileage or make other savings that in a commercial situation might have value.
For the controller it means that vectors to intercept the LOC/GS are no longer required, thereby reducing the workload. However, it is unlikely you will be given the choice if the controller needs to have you under positive control for reasons of separation and/or sequencing.
If you really need/want the vectoring then Tracy's solution is the way to go.
Well, not that it will mean too much, but if ATC say to me “Cleared...........” are you saying I don’t have to do what they just cleared me to do? I know it’s splitting hairs but if a pilot is cleared to do something aren’t they supposed to do that. I’ve even heard atc asking what pilots think they are doing after saying “cleared....” and they do something different.
-
Indeed, not sure what the hang up with pilots having to report visual is. Sometimes flying I’ve been asked several times by app to report visual, as though I should be. If I’m not happy to navigate visually to the airport, i’m Not going to say “visual”.
-
-
Whenever Oceanic I setup a voice room for guard. I honestly can’t see much point telling pilots that you accept secondary (guard) on a frequency and don’t have it available.
-
Nathan,
we did discuss this recently (10yrs ago I think) and the last position was that if the controllers would oblige then it was ok. I totally agree though, should be in MATS to encourage.
I think the main objection last time was that the POF files set the range of codes.
Just did a search and our present forum doesn’t go back far enough.
-
Joshua,
always going to get that, especially with SUPs not believing we are allowed to extend.
-
2
-
-
GA Madness
in Events
Can we please get the events module working on the VATPAC page. I looked at the site this morning, thinking the event was in, but the events box was empty......
-
It won’t kill anyone, so rest, and reguvenate mate.
-
Quigs,
Should 6.1.1.1 d) be moved into the ENR 6.1.1.2 section?
If there is an unstaffed TMA who has to put the note noting so?
only a minor typo, unless I’m reading it wrong.
-
What is Facebook?
-
First thoughts, why be exclusive of the rest of the controllers? Is it a close knit community that you wish to achieve, or more controllers online?
My counter suggestion. Why not have a ask controllers to supply their email address and then ask them to control when you want/need them? There needs to be some guidance/leadership if controlling isn’t happening when and where you want it. I don’t support excluding more controllers from your pool of those available.
i know I have limitations, but I only recall once being asked to help with controlling in twelve years.
So I come back to the original thought.... Are you wanting a close knit micro community of controllers, or do you want to invlove all available controllers in your plan?
Helicopter Operations Sydney
in ATC Training
Posted
IRL do RW departures and arrivals talk to DEP/APP? I thought due to the Airspace and the fact most of them depart VFR OCTA that TWR held them until OCTA. Could be wrong.